Monitor help please :) .......

Nick05

Nick05

Nick05

Associate
Joined
11 May 2015
Posts
5
Hi all,
I am looking at upgrading my whole PC setup this year but I am a little stuck on which monitor / monitors to buy.......
I use my PC for general internet browsing / shopping but mainly for Gaming, I play games like Tomb Raider, Assasins Creed, Dead Light, Witcher 3 etc etc but I also own a sim rig for racing which is where I am a little stuck on which monitor setup to go for, triples or ultra wide single.
I am holding out for the 3080ti so I have time to wait for the new Samsung Odyssey G9 49-inch which ofc would eliminate the need for triples or do I bypass the G9 and simply go for x3 LG UltraGear 27GL850-B Quad HD 27" Nano IPS, whats your thoughts and the pros and cons please guys ?

My rig will be:
Gigabyte MB INT 1151 Z390 Designare D4 ATX
G. Skill D432GB 3200
Intel Core i9-9900K
EVGA Nvidia 3080ti Hybrid

Monitor specs:

LG UltraGear 27GL850-B Quad HD 27" Nano IPS LCD Gaming Monitor
• Nano IPS 1ms response time
• 27” QHD (2560 x 1440) Nano IPS Display
• NVIDIA® G-SYNC® Compatible
• Adaptive-Sync (FreeSyncTM)
• 144Hz refresh rate
• HDR 10


Samsung Odyssey G9 49-inch Ultrawide Gaming Monitor
• QLED
• 1ms response time
• 5120x1440 resolution
• Both FreeSync 2 and G-Sync compatibility
• 240Hz refresh rate
• HDR1000
 
That Samsung isn't any real quantum dot monitor, but VA panel with VA's strengths and weaknesses.
Samsung just keeps conitunuing their fraudulent name twisting every time they change backlight behind that same old LCD.

So contrast and hence black will be good, making great looking picture, if you have darker room.
At the expense of VA's horizontal gamma shift "crushing" darkest shades toward full black.
Also response times have "challenges" in darker transitions being lazy compared to other panels or then major inverse ghosting from RTC overshoot.
IPS does lot better in consistency of response times with no such problematic transitions.
But with its usual LCD level lot lower contrast than VA doesn't look that good in darker environment and needs normally illuminated room.


Anyway at those pixel counts you'll be heavily GPU capped and there's no sense to pay Intel's luxury prices for yester-yesteryear's hardware...
On dead end platform stuck to count of cores, which will be mainstream level when next-gen consoles arrive.

Also would be better to wait also for AMD's releases of new architecture (developed also for next-gen consoles) GPU before buying new graphics cards.
Nvidia is no doubt trying to go for even higher prices, because all previous price bumps have been accepted and Coronavirus can be used as further convenient excuse for more butt syncing.
 
Thank you for the links and replies....

@EsaT,

Well that puts things into perspective, I must admit I have been a good little sheep and stuck with Intel and Nvidia most of my PC life,
Due to a bad experience with an AMD setup about 15 years ago it put me off so I stuck to what I thought was best and have never given AMD another thought until now,
A friend of mine has been trying to convince me to go to AMD lately and also a few others via internet advice and after reading your post (yet another AMD recommendation) I may just do that.

After recently reading that the i9-10900K was soon to be released I did think about waiting for that along with the nvidia 3080ti,
Not being a fan of AMD I don't really try and keep up with their products which leads me on to ask you what AMD setup would you advise to compete with the above setup ?

I only really use my PC for gaming so would an Intel CPU not be better for Higher clock speeds being most important for my usage ?
 
Last edited:
Nick05 said:
Due to a bad experience with an AMD setup about 15 years ago


After recently reading that the i9-10900K was soon to be released
Click to expand...
Precisely 15 years ago AMD was beating Intel pretty much completely in CPUs with Athlon 64.
Leading Intel to use even more illegal means to maintain market share.
But motherboards with Nvidia's chipset weren't entirely good.
It wasn't until summer 2006 when Intel got back into competition and took lead with Conroe/Core 2.
(then gluing two of them into one package for quad core Kentsfield for early 2007)


10900K is same old 2015's 6th gen Skylake rebranded fourth time, with another two cores added.
(because Intel's calculator can't add more than +2 at time)
Which isn't much considering current AM4 boards take up to 16 core CPUs and there's actually improved Zen3 architecture coming.
And who knows how many vulnerabilities more there will be to patch in Intel's speculative code execution.
Because of minimal differences besides branding it won't have much single core performance difference to 9900K.
But already 2560x1440 pixels makes small CPU performance differences basically moot point.

Also wouldn't hold my breath for actual availability of Intel.
Intel has already had problems with insane power consumption and now Coronavirus no doubt has further effect to release of not yet ready products.
Hence wouldn't expect faster than paper release for summer.
And better count in months in addition to that for shelf availability.
Proper availability of last couple Intel releases have been seriously late, because of their manufacturing capacity problems.
The way Intel has screwed up their huge lead from half dozen years ago is beyond imagination.
 
Thanks for the insight EsaT, I have been reading similar statements this morning and the more i go on the more I am warming to AMD,
One more question if I may ...... Would it be better for me to wait for the new AMD Ryzen 4000 series or would a 3900x be suffice for my needs ?

@EsaT
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom